Ken Rosenthal reports that the Nats have narrowed their managerial choices down to two: current skipper Jim Riggleman and Bobby Valentine. However, the Nats are more likely to stay the course than make the sexier pick in Valentine, says Rosenthal, for the simple reason that Riggleman won’t demand as much money as Valentine is presumed to want.

One the one hand you can look at this as the Nats being cheap: Valentine is a better manager than Riggleman and the Nats need some identity, so why not pay for it?

But I can’t say it’s a bad move on their part. The Nats aren’t ready to win yet and whether Bobby Valentine plans to be in the game long enough to see the process through — as opposed to simply get back into the Majors in order to become a viable candidate for other, more attractive jobs — is an open question. In contrast, given how interminable the Nats’ managerial search has seemed to be, we know that Riggleman has patience.

If I’m the Nats, I probably stay the course with company-man Riggleman until the point when they truly look like they’re ready to take it to next level. He’ll abide by the pitch count restrictions the brass wants to place on Strasburg. He won’t rock the boat while the youngins mature. If the team surprises under his watch, great, but mostly he’s around until the team starts to look like a winner. Then Washington can court a marquee manager.

Hey Wilpon…Please sign Valentine already. It is the most logical spot for him to manage. He can not be any worse than Manuel. The guy won the NL pennant in 2000 with some guys that should not have been on any team’s major league roster. He is the real deal for your chances to get back to this level. Manuel is not a good major league manager, I am still stunned you decided to keep him.

The Wilpons are keeping Manuel because they don’t want to fire
him and pay him, you can thank Bernie Madoff for ripping them
off millions.Kirk, my advice to you is join a winner, The YANKEES.
THE YANKEES ARE CHAMPIONS OF BASEBALL,,,,, AGAIN

Craig – for various reasons I wasn’t able to pay attention to the transitional period from Willie Randolph to Manuel, but I heard some pretty ugly things about Manuel’s maneuvering behind Willie’s back during that time. I don’t like to pass judgment on someone based on rumor (unless I detested said “someone” beforehandanyway), so I pass judgment on Manuel as a manager based merely on the way the team choked on him twice and just gave up under him this past year. Whether I think he deserved it or not depends upon what reliable information there is about his alleged screwing of one of the classiest guys in the game. What was all that really about anyway?